Special Counsel Jack Smith’s Final Report in the 2020 Election Interference Case
Jan 15, 2025
auto_awesome
Tom Joscelyn, a Senior Fellow at Just Security, and Marty Lederman, Professor at Georgetown University and former Justice Department official, dive deep into Special Counsel Jack Smith's final report on the 2020 election interference. They discuss the implications of the report, concluding it could lead to a criminal conviction post-election but reveals little new information on January 6. The pair also highlight concerns about political accountability, the normalization of misconduct, and the ongoing challenges of restoring integrity in American politics.
The report indicates that Trump's criminal efforts to overturn the 2020 election, despite lacking evidence, raise serious concerns about his fitness for office.
The normalization of Trump's unprecedented actions highlights the dangerous acceptance of formerly unacceptable conduct within the political establishment.
Deep dives
Consequences of Trump's Actions
The report concludes that President-elect Donald Trump engaged in several criminal efforts to overturn the 2020 presidential election, despite a lack of credible evidence for his claims of fraud. It outlines his attempts to pressure state officials to ignore the true vote counts and to create false slates of electors from the states he lost. Furthermore, it details how he urged the Department of Justice officials and even his own vice president to act contrary to their oaths for his personal benefit. These actions culminated in the events of January 6, where he directed a mob toward the Capitol to obstruct the certification of the election results.
Uncontested Facts and Political Ramifications
A notable takeaway from the report is that Trump's legal team has largely avoided disputing the factual claims made against him, indicating a lack of contention regarding the evidence presented. Despite rampant accusations from Trump and his supporters about the election being stolen, there has been little effort to counter the overwhelming evidence outlined in the report. Historically unprecedented actions taken by Trump raise serious questions about his fitness for office, yet they seem to be largely overlooked by segments of the political establishment. This normalization of Trump's behavior highlights a disturbing acceptance of conduct previously deemed unacceptable for someone in his position.
Impacts on State-Level Criminal Prosecutions
The report is expected to influence ongoing state-level cases against individuals involved in the fabrication of false electors, particularly as some of these electors may have been misled by higher authorities. Many of these individuals claimed to have believed they were acting within a legitimate legal framework contingent upon pending election litigation. The clear distinction between those actually orchestrating the scheme and the duped electors raises ethical concerns about holding only the latter accountable. This dynamic emphasizes the need to address the motivations and actions of higher-ups to ensure a just legal response.
Institutional Norms and Accountability
Restoring institutional norms after the events surrounding January 6 remains a significant concern for experts, with fears that acceptance of unprecedented behavior is becoming ingrained in the political fabric. The conversation emphasizes that accountability cannot rely solely on legal proceedings, especially when evidence of wrongdoing is widely acknowledged yet dismissed by substantial portions of the electorate. The intimate connection between conspiracy theories and political movements is highlighted, suggesting that these narratives have permeated Republican discourse and undermined the pursuit of justice. Ultimately, these challenges showcase the complexity of navigating a political landscape shaped by disparate beliefs regarding truth and accountability.
Just after midnight on Tuesday, Jan. 14, Special Counsel Jack Smith’s office released its report on President-elect Donald Trump’s efforts to overturn the 2020 presidential election. The report concludes that the evidence Smith obtained was sufficient to criminally convict Trump, but that after the 2024 election, the case could not move forward in light of Justice Department policy against prosecuting a sitting president.
While the report reveals relatively little new factual information around the events of the January 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol, it does explain Smith’s rationale for his legal positions and key decisions. The report could also have implications for other criminal proceedings, including state-level cases against fake electors.
What are the report’s key take-aways and how might it add to the historical record?
Joining the show to discuss the report are Tom Joscelyn and Marty Lederman.
Tom is a Senior Fellow at Just Security. He was a senior professional staff member on the House Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the U.S. Capitol. Marty is an Executive Editor at Just Security and a Professor at Georgetown University Law Center. He served in senior roles at the Justice Department, including in the Office of Legal Counsel.
Tom’s Just Security article with Ryan Goodman (Bluesky – LinkedIn) “3 Highlights in Special Counsel Jack Smith’s Final Report on 2020 Election Subversion Case”